Jman article in Bluff

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
very nice article

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks sweaters. That means a lot.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read all comments, I just have to point out that this passage in the article is wrong:

"In the ultimate long run, your Sklansky Dollars earned and real dollars earned will be the same."

They will be close to the same, but saying that they will be the same is like saying that the cards dealt are dependent on the cards dealt in previous hands. If you after 100k hands are up 100k in sklansky bucks, but only up 20k in real dollars, the difference is 80k. The expected difference between your sklansky bucks and real dollars after playing another infinite number of hands will still be 80k (due to your crappy start) and not 0 as the article suggests.

[/ QUOTE ]

irrelevant.

[Hensa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(with 30% equity it would turn out we can fire 45% of the time obviously)

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but I don't get it. I thought it was an approximate but it seems ( with the word " obvisously " used ) that it is possible to calculate this 45%.
If anyone can explain me how to do, I will appreciate it.

tyvm

[/ QUOTE ]

I start to be nervous now. My english is bad, and may be my understanding is flawed somewhere. So please, someone, tell me if it is an estimate or an arrogant comment ( I mean the " obviously comment ".
I sent a pm.... without answer, I made a post here, nothing. Do you want a strip-tease ?
WTF

[Eagles]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read all comments, I just have to point out that this passage in the article is wrong:

"In the ultimate long run, your Sklansky Dollars earned and real dollars earned will be the same."

They will be close to the same, but saying that they will be the same is like saying that the cards dealt are dependent on the cards dealt in previous hands. If you after 100k hands are up 100k in sklansky bucks, but only up 20k in real dollars, the difference is 80k. The expected difference between your sklansky bucks and real dollars after playing another infinite number of hands will still be 80k (due to your crappy start) and not 0 as the article suggests.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think you understand what "the ultimate long run" means.

[pofigistka]

Thanks, am going to have to read it through a few times, but made me realise against a thinking player the way i play my drawing hands and tp pr gd kckr hands may be too transparent.

[prinsrob]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I skimmed it through too fast and missed a few points, you are correct in that the hand range given didnt exclude anything, and I missed a few part. Either way, at point of turncall, has no percect knowledge of our rivershove range, and thus he has no idea whether we will always fire with all our range on river, and thus the 70% equity is of no real consequence. If he somehow knew that we would always fire our whole range all the time, then yeah, calling turn and river will show an immediate profit, but since he cannot, should we fire with an optimal frequency (with 30% equity it would turn out we can fire 45% of the time obviously), and thus he would gain the 9000 in the pot 55% of the time (when we check), and lose 4500 the times we bet, so with this particular range he'd still win móney even if he folded all the times on river, only when Jman changes his range for turnbet does it become wrong to call both streets, this whole example granted we are clairovoyant so we can bet the times we hit just a pair with a suited connector as well for value, and even so, him calling turn becomes automatically correct. If Jman starts bluffing more than 15% of the time hes no longer playing optimally and we could resort to calling all the time, and even if we continue to fold all the time he'd need to be able to fire more than 67% on the river which simply isn't happening in reality since we'd just obviously all the time at that point.

So yeah, jmans assumption in this case is actually wrong given the handrange, but I felt you didn't express it that much in detail [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi,

Could you explain how you calculate these percentages? (I don't want to sound lazy and did try to come up with them myself but I guess I'm too dumb [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]),

thnx,

SSNLplayer [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[Sukie]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think you understand what "the ultimate long run" means.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I do. There's still no guarantee it will even out completely. It will however even out in the sense that:

(earned sklansky dollars)/(earned real dollars) -> 1

but even in the long run:

(earned sklansky dollars) - (earned real dollars) != 0

I still think it's a good article though, and yes, my comment is maybe just a technicality (a correct one however). I just didn't feel the need to post another "zomg great article no more fishies left soon lol"-comment.

[Rococo]

The real question is how big a caveat the following statement in the article is: "(The next level would be taking range versus range, but that gets very complicated mathematically.)"

As the author obviously recognizes, we can't just put our opponent on AJ and widen our range accordingly. The question, I guess, is how to optimize our range v. range play, given the natural limitations on human bandwidth.

[Anderson1]

awesome article. thanks.

[Daddy Warbucks]

I don't think this has been mentioned, but is the small dig at Sklansky really necessary?

(The "egotistical" statement is what i mean if anybody is unsure)